Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Arts, and Ideas - 77 | Azra Raza on The Way We Should Fight Cancer

Episode Date: December 16, 2019

In the United States, more than one in five deaths is caused by cancer. The medical community has put enormous resources into fighting this disease, yet its causes and best treatments continue to be a puzzle. Azra Raza has been on both sides of the patient's bed, as she puts it — both as an oncologist and expert in the treatment of Myelodisplastic Syndrome (MDS), and as a wife who lost her husband to cancer. In her new book, The First Cell, she argues that we have placed too much emphasis on treating cancer once it has already developed, and not nearly enough on catching it as soon as possible. We talk about what cancer is and why it's such a difficult disease to understand, as well as discussing how patients and their loved ones should face up to the challenges of dealing with cancer. Support Mindscape on Patreon. Azra Raza received her M.D. from Dow Medical College in Karachi, Pakistan. She is currently Chan Soon-Shiong Professor of Medicine and Director of the MDS Center at Columbia University in New York. Previously she was the Chief of Hematology-Oncology and the Gladys Smith Martin Professor of Oncology at the University of Massachusetts. Her Tissue Repository contains over 60,000 samples of samples from MDS and acute leukemia patients. She is the co-editor of the celebrated blog site 3 Quarks Daily. Web site Columbia University Medical Center page First Cell Center Wikipedia The First Cell Conversation With Siddhartha Mukherjee Twitter

Your social media feed delivers plenty of advice. But it doesn't know you. It doesn't ask questions. It doesn't give physical exams or order tests. Doctors do. At the American Medical Association, we believe the best care starts with a real conversation with someone who understands the science and your unique health.

So stay curious. Ask questions. But when it's time to make decisions, make them with a doctor. Learn more at AMA Health vs.hype.org. That's AMAHealthVShype.org. Indeed, sponsor jobs gets you quality candidates when you need them most. Spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Less stress, less time, more results.

When you need the right person to cut through the chaos, this is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs. And listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsor job credit to help get your job the premium status it deserves at Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need to hire? This is a job for indeed sponsored jobs. Hello, everyone, and welcome to the Mindscape podcast. I'm your host, Sean Carroll. And today we're talking about a somewhat difficult subject, which is cancer,

and how we can try to treat and prevent cancer from taking lives. It's a difficult subject, of course, because I, and I'm sure many other people in the audience, are familiar with people who have passed away because of cancer. The two leading causes of any kind of death in the United States are hard to, disease and cancer by a wide margin, these two things. And I think at least informally, I don't have any data, and I don't want to valorize one way of dying over another, but my informal impression is that cancer is much crueler than heart disease in many ways. It can come on people who are otherwise perfectly healthy. It can appear in people relatively young. I know people in their 40s and 50s who

have been diagnosed. And the way that we have of treating it is not very good. It involves a very painful process, a very drawn-out long process that often fails, that often, even though we do everything we can, cancer still claims a victim. So today's guest on Minescape is Azra Raza, who is the Chan Sun-Syong Professor of Medicine at Columbia University. She's an oncologist. She's been doing cancer research for a long time. She has a new book out called The First Cell, the Human Costs of Pursuing Cancer to the Last. And as I said, we all know people who have died of cancer, Azra's husband, who was also an oncologist, was diagnosed with cancer and it eventually claimed his life. So no matter how much you know, no matter how expert you are in the field, this can come to get you,

and there's really nothing you can do about it. So Osra's angle is that we should shift a lot of our resources from fighting cancer once it's already spread through the body to finding cancer as soon as it appears. That's the name of the book, The First Cell, The First Cell, the First. cell in the body that goes cancerous. Of course, many people would agree. Many doctors, many oncologists would agree that that would be great if we could do it. But the argument is that we can do it. There are things that we know that would improve the rates at which we find cancer very, very early, but we're just not putting in the resources to doing that that we could.

And one of the wonderful things about Azra's book, and it'll come out in the conversation, is that she's a very warm, human kind of doctor, and there's a lot of stories in the book about individual people and their struggles with cancer. And we talk a little bit about the fact that I would be, you know, I would have a tough time being an oncologist, talking with people who had cancer all the time. But Osir really appreciates it thinks it's a privilege that she gets to, you know, help people in this crucial moment

in their lives going one way or another. So it's a very kind of uplifting conversation despite the gloomy topic overall. So this is the last Minescape podcast, the last regular one anyway of 2019. I take a two-week break for the holidays. There may or may not be another holiday message like I did last time. But one way or the other, I wanted to thank everyone who's been listening,

Patreon supporters especially, but really anyone who is listening to Mindscape once or every single week, my thanks goes out to you. It's sort of amazing to me that I can sit here and talk, and I can send an email to some brilliant accomplished person somewhere in the world. old and say, can I talk to you for an hour or two? And they will say yes, because I have this podcast. I hope you're enjoying it as much as I am. And I know that I have some really good guests lined up for the schedule next year already. So 2020 is going to be another great year for Minescape. When people turn to telehealth for weight loss, they're looking for real support. That's why more

people are choosing orderly meds.com. Orderly Mets connects you with real doctors and access to proven GLP1 medications like semaglutide and terseptatide. No guessing, just a more supportive experience. and all ship directly to your door in discrete packaging. Do your research, ask questions, then visit orderlymeds.com slash podcast for an exclusive offer. That's orderlymeds.com slash podcast. Individual results may vary not. Medical advice, eligibility required, C-Sight for details.

When Toyota builds an electric vehicle, we don't start with a blank slate. We start with everything we know. The BZ brings Toyota's proven engineering to electric, with impressive range, intuitive technology, and Toyota reliability. BZ reflects decades of experience, reimagined for what's next. The BZ isn't just electric.

It's Toyota Electric. We make it easy. Toyota, let's go places. Enjoy your holidays and let's go. Okay, Osveira Zha, thanks for coming on the Mindscape podcast. Delighted to be here, Sean. This is just how everyone out there in podcast land knows we've never met before, but we have, you know, knowledge of each other over the internet for many years now.

You're part of the collective that makes Three Quarks Daily, the famous blog site. Is that right? Yes, my younger brother Abbas Raza is the chief, editor-in-chief of it. And what kind of things do you contribute there? For the last 15 years, I've been posting two stories daily, very occasionally one. And one of them is a story related to some kind of. of scientific news that's just been released or a scientific article. But the other is general interest because I have many other interests.

So it could be literature, philosophy, music, art, anything. Well, that's what's great about the website. It really does bring things together in a way that is reminiscent of the Mindscape podcast here. So that makes you a perfect guest. And also what makes you a perfect guess is you have a book that just came out. Is that right? or is it coming out, called The First Cell, and it's not about the origin of life, it's about cancer. And you're an oncologist, and I thought, I want to get into what cancer is, how we treat it,

and so forth, but I can't help but ask about the very moving personal story that you open the book with. Could you tell the audience about that? Well, the book is titled the first cell, but equally important is the subtitle of the book, which is, and the human costs of pursuing cancer to the last. So this is a book not about cancer, it is about cancer patients. Yes. And the purpose of this book, Sean, is to bring back the patient front and center into every discussion we have about cancer,

no matter how deeply and rigorously scientific it is. We have to ask the question at every point where does the patient benefit from this or is hurt by it? And so as a result of having this goal in mind, I have told many patient stories as well as patients who are under treatment with me right now, their stories they have told in their own words. But after I started to write it, I realized that it would be insincere of me.

if I did not include my own. Because if I'm going into such granularity about people's suffering and pain, it's not fair to shield myself. If you're asking other people to open up in this way, then yes. That's exactly right. And so it has been 18 years now since my husband, Harvey Prysler, died.

I have never spoken about it to anyone or written about it. But what made me come out and write it and then write in as much detail as possible because that's what I was demanding of my other patients and their families.

Now this personal story became like a red line running throughout the book through every chapter and then there's a whole chapter devoted to Harvey you asked me to tell you something about this personal story I opened the book with

so this is the background of why I put it there. And then, of course, Harvey was my mentor since I'm 24 years of age. We later got married. He was the head of the Cancer Center. And in an ironic and cruel twist of fate, he got the very disease he had dedicated his life to cure since he was 15 years old, cancer, leukemia. And he suffered inexplicable indignities at the hands of this disease over a cold. of almost five years. Our daughter was three years old when he was diagnosed and eight years old

when he died. And so in this sort of dizzying, disorienting period, what I experienced needed some distance of time as well, even to verbalize some of those things. So in a way, the book is a combination of my personal story, but that of the people I take care of and that of the disease I study. So it's several books in one, I guess. Yeah, yeah. You know, I also had a very good friend, Michael, who was an oncologist and was diagnosed with cancer and eventually died of it. And at nothing else, it reminds us that we really don't know so much about the disease.

The people who know the most are still helpless in the face of it. And there's something about cancer that is especially cruel, how it happens, apparently randomly, you can be relatively young, it takes years, and you can reach a point where there's not much you can do. And the greatest cruelty is that it is a silent killer, that it can grow to an advanced stage within your body, and you have no inkling about it. In fact, there's a very, very interesting study that was done some years ago, Sean, where people who have been long-term smokers try to quit many, many times.

And when they finally managed to quit and not go back, because they quit, go back, quit, finally when they managed to quit, an inordinately high number of them end up with lung cancer. Really? So a study was done to show why, and it turns, the conclusion was that most likely they could stop only because something internal finally warned them to. That was a selection effect, right? So there is something, but we tend to ignore. it completely and because it's at such a subconscious level. So when you say that something very terrible about cancer, very unique about it, is that it is a silent killer. And just so

hopefully many people in the audience have not seen cancer up close or had to deal with it. So let's back up, explain what cancer is. It's not a simple even thing to explain what it is, right? There's many varieties and many manifestations. To begin with, the very simple thing is, that every living cell, which is normal, has a limited number of proliferation or divisions it can undergo. This is known as the hayflick limit, that after 40 to 45 cell divisions, it will either undergo a process of committing suicide or be killed by other things, or it will dial down all its activities and enter a state of senescence and be useful no longer. I mean, by the way, that's worth a podcast all by itself, that fact, right?

Because, you know, amoebas don't have that property. They can just keep dividing forever. So we complicated multicellular organisms have built in a lifetime, you know, a suicide mechanism for our own cells. That just fascinates me to no end. But, okay, let's not get too distracted. And cancer cells overcome this hayflict limit and become immortalized that they don't die. So to me, the definition of a cancer. cancer is just that, that a cell which is now capable of infinite number of divisions.

And what causes cancer really, there are some very specific events that can give rise to it, but most of the time it's a random event. And probably I would say at least 60% of all cancers happen because of DNA copying errors as the cell is dividing. And is it correct to say that one thing we do know about cancer, is that it involves a change in the DNA? It's some sort of genetic mutation one way or the other? Only partly correct. Okay.

Because generic change is one thing, but inside the cell itself, but also control of those, a cellular function could come from an external source. However, ultimately it is the, cell gone rogue by itself, running amok. So in the end, you are right that there has to be a genetic component to every cancer cell. And is it just, is it merely that it grows without bound, or does the size and functionality of the shape of the cell also change? Probably as a result of the cancerous changes, everything goes haywire, really.

It serves no useful function anymore. and it does change size, shape, form. When you have, I guess, since I know so little about this, my ignorance is going to show, when you have a tumor for a sort of cancer that is stationary in your body, does that grow because the cells simply keep dividing or because the individual cells puff up? Or is it a mixture of both? It's because cells are dividing and making a big mass around them. I think think of cancer as something which tends to evolve like life itself.

The same constraints and the same principles that apply to evolution, apply to initiation, expansion, growth of a cancer also. So one cancer cell, let's say, divides and becomes two. Each time a cell divides, it has to copy its entire. DNA, which is about 3 billion base pairs. So on the whole, at each division, a cell will retain three to four new mutations. Now, most of these mutations are passive, which means they're not, they're harmless. But some of these, if one of these happen to occur in a vital gene, for example,

which is controlling proliferation or which is responsible for growth control, which are known as tumor suppressor genes. If these mutations happen in one of those vital genes, then the function of the cell is affected. But then, let's say now overcomes growth control because of this mutation, that is mutation which will be termed as the driver or the founder mutation.

So the first cell will have the founder mutation. But each time it divides into two shone, that's the problem. It's going to pick up. new passenger mutations that may not change its proliferative or doubling ability, but it can change its metabolism, its response to drugs, its ability to be more aggressive, and it's dividing so much more rapidly than normal cells that it starts making a mass, getting more and more blood supply to self becomes a hot area because it needs nutrition to

to help itself. But the point is that this mass of cells now, after like 30 doublings, may have nothing or very little in common except the founding mutation with the original cell. So in other words, it's a constantly metamorphosing, mutating, transforming, dividing, selectively evolving sort of collection of cells. So what, I say is that treating cancer as one disease is like treating Africa as one country. And it's a moving target because let's say I remove a tumor from my lung today to study its sensitivity to 50 drugs and find two drugs which are very effective. By the time I found the two drugs, it's six weeks later because of all the tests I did. Cancer has moved on. The drugs would

have worked six weeks ago. And this is one of the reasons that we have not. being able to control advanced cancers until now. The outcome for a patient with advanced disease is no different than it was in 1930s. If we put into an evolutionary context, a biological context, is there any reason why cancer happens? Is there some purpose served for it biologically? I have this vague feeling that elephants don't get cancer or something like that. There are different stories about different species having different susceptibilities. Is there a grand theory of all this? No. Short answer is no. It's called Pettos paradox because the idea would be that if the number of mutations increase each time a cell divides, then a larger organism should have a higher chance of

having cancer, right? Just by that alone. And it's exactly not true. because, and it's not the opposite either, because, for example, mice and humans, humans should have more cancer, it's not true. Whales almost never get cancer for a different reason than elephants don't. We think we know why elephants are not getting cancer because they have 20 copies of a tumor suppressor gene called P53 and that those genes are redundant so that if one is mutated, another one takes its place and another one. And so tumor suppress a gene P53, which is known as the guardian of the genome, because it's constantly surveying the genome for mutations and forcing the cell which shows a mutation to commit suicide, if that gene gets mutated and it stops performing its normal guardian function, then the cell can become cancerous.

But if you have redundant copies of that gene, then the opposite would happen. That is, you know, the next copy would kick in even if one is mutated. However, when this was replicated in animal models to produce, to overexpress this gene or to have insert multiple copies of these genes, the results were not so great because you know what happened. The animals, number one, didn't get cancer, but age, aged dramatically. Ah, okay. And died of aging.

Well, I was going to ask, because I've never heard of the tumor suppressor gene. Again, I'm not an expert in this area. But it sounds like, yeah, we should just have lots of tumor suppressor genes. But it's not that simple either. It's not that simple. And so it would be simplistic to think that elephants who are large animals and should be getting lots of cancers don't get it is all because they have 20 copies of P53. We'd like to think so. Yeah.

Let me pause for a second to talk about policy genius.com. I know that probably shopping for insurance is something that, if you haven't already done it, doesn't seem that exciting. It seems like one of those things you're going to put low on your list of priorities, especially the holidays are coming up. You have other things on your mind. So PolicyGenius makes it easy to shop for insurance, whether it's life insurance, health insurance, disability insurance, or what have you. You can go to one website, type in what you want, and you can get a list of different options with all the prices explicitly there. And once you apply, the PolicyGenius team,

will handle all of the paperwork and red tape. You can save up to $1,500 or more per year by using PolicyGenius to compare life insurance policies alone. So if you need life insurance but aren't sure where to start, why not start at policygenius.com? It only takes a few minutes to find the right insurance policy, apply, cross another thing off your end of the year to-do list. Policy Genius, it's nice to get it right. So aside from the grand biological theories, what about human beings? cancer is quite common on the scale of things that kill us in the world today, right? I mean, what should a typical American, let's say, sorry, let me back up. Are the numbers very different from the U.S. to Europe, to Africa, to Asia, etc.?

Actually, no. Okay. The only difference in numbers that appears is because some places keep good statistics, others don't. So the only numbers we can rely on, unfortunately, are only Western countries and a few countries in Asia and Africa. But in general, wherever it has been looked at, a few things are very clear. Number one, no age is immune from cancer. So from birth to death, a person can get cancer anytime.

However, it's much more common as age advances. So not just because you're older, but because the likelihood per year goes up when you're older. I actually call it the mist of aging to remember it. It's an acronym missed. M stands for mutations. So just remember that by the time you are older, each cell has now gone through multiple mutations. So each cell has more mutations in it.

And if you think about this great sandpile game that Pierre Bach, one of my patients that I described in great detail in the book, came up with was that if you are dropping grains of sand, forms a little pile. But this sand pile after you keep dropping the sand will eventually collapse. The last grain of sand which caused the pile to collapse was no different than thousands of grains that came before it. It was the pile that had become unstable. So it's not necessarily something, a mutation that causes cancer. It could just be that with age, many things are becoming unstable in the body. So one of the

them is the number of mutations have increased per cell. A second one is the immune system may be a little more decrepit now. It's not as efficient in eliminating the abnormal misbehaving cells. Right. So immune is I in mist? Yes. And then the S stands for senescence, which we mentioned this briefly earlier that after the hayflick limit is reached and cells dialed down their activities and enter a quiescence period in which they are really not performing any more useful function. They're incapable of dividing anymore, so they'll never become cancerous, but they have a minimal level of metabolic function going on to stay alive.

So now more and more cells are entering senescence with age, and what is happening is they are producing a ton of garbage, and the garbage system in the body is becoming... I can feel it. You're too young. The garbage system is now becoming overwhelmed. And what happens then is that more and more of this toxic material starts collecting and poisons the soil or the microenvironment in which the seed or the cell is living. So the S really is not just senescence, but the soil as well.

Of the body becomes more pro-inflammatory, which means these inflammatory, protein, cytokines, are accumulating and causing normal cells to have less than robust existence, whereas supporting the proliferation and growth of something which is even slightly out of balance, but has a selective growth advantage in that setting. So it's fitness of the landscape to the seed that's existing in it. And the last... So sorry, just to make that clear, the system. Inescent cells, as you say, they're not the ones that are going to become cancerous,

but they make all the cells around them more prone to it by weakening them in some sense. Yes, by poisoning the atmosphere in which they are living, poisoning the soil in which they exist. That's exactly right. And the last thing, T, that, you see, one of the problems is that, I'll give you the example of the bone marrow. In a normal, healthy adult, half of the marrow is fat cells. and the other half is hematopoeric cells,

which means the cells which make blood, which do all the things blood is supposed to do. By the time we are, let's say, 70 years old, this ratio changes so that 70% of it is now just empty space, which is filled with fat cells, and only 30% are active cells. So in this setting, what happens is that every living cell is under the control of signals from other cells, from within itself, from the soil in which it exists, from blood vessels that are coming, from nerve endings that are feeding onto it.

The increase in distance between controlling cells and those that are the targets, the effector and the effector cells, just by increasing that, that geo-gevity. geographic distance, you know, that can also lead to slight change in, for example, suppressive behavior. If a cell is growing too much, then it would be controlled and it would be told not to. And yet, it's suddenly taking off. So I do think that with age, the incidence of cancer increases. Because you asked me about, is it the same all over the world and is it the same disease all over the world. What we see is in America, for example, 1.7 million new cancer cases are

diagnosed in adults. In children, 14,000 a year. So you see the difference that age makes. They're there, but there's a big difference, yeah. Yeah. So there is a big difference in age, but as I said, no age is really immune from it. I mean, all of these facts about aging, tangentially to this conversation, but I've had previous conversations with experts on aging. And, you know, there are people out there who want to stop or reverse aging. And this reminds us how hard it is, how many things are going on under the umbrella of what we call aging. No, I don't think, I mean, of course it's going to be very hard. Like, curing cancer is like you're going to cure aging, basically.

But one thing we can target is instead of always running after disease, and treating disease preventing it. Right, sure, absolutely. But I want to get there, but just to drive at home, how important that is, again, for the folks in the audience who haven't had to go through this personally, how do we treat cancer in a typical patient these days? Is there a standard way of, we've all heard of radiation therapy and chemotherapy and so forth? Yes, so the good news is that 68% cancers that are diagnosed,

today are cured. But cured with what? The same things we were using like 60, 70 years ago. Slash poison burns, surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy. The same things. Of course, there are very small pockets of rare cancers for which other things are used. Two of them have targeted therapies. One is chronic myeloid leukemia being treated with amatineb,

which is one gene causing a problem and one magic. bullet that targets it. That's the one cancer that has been really paradigmatic in the sense that it seemed to establish a model that cancer is a disease that is caused by a genetic change, which can be targeted by a drug successfully. Sadly, it turned out that for all other cancers, there's many, many genetic mutations and no single drug seems to be working. So basically, chemotherapy is an indiscriminate killing of normal as well as abnormal cells. And that's what we are still using. The 32% patients that we are not curing, their outcome today is as bad as it was 50 years ago. And so what should we do? Part of the message of your book is that, of course,

we don't have all the answers. You don't have all the answers either. But we do choose to spend our resources trying different things. And you have a specific angle you think that we should be pushing toward. Yes, the angle is of course that of the first cell, that instead of forever chasing and trying to kill the last cell, we have been trying to do that for 50 years. We have done it successfully in a very small number of rare cancers, but for the majority of patients who present with the common types of cancers, you know, GI, colorectal, lung, or, or, you know, or ovarian kidney cancer. I mean, for these types of cancers,

we really haven't made a big striking blow against them in using the same slash poison burn approaches. Let me, I should have asked this earlier, but we speak of cancer being in remission. We typically don't speak of cancer being cured, right? Can you explain the difference there? I mean, it's a technicality where oncologists insist that if someone has been cancer-free for five years at least, then we call them cured. Okay.

But otherwise, if there is no evidence of even microscopic disease, we only will call it remission. And that's because we are never sure, whether there's still a little bit of cancer there? Yes, that it may recur. But after five years, if it recurs, the chances are that it's a new cancer. Right. Okay, that's fair. And is it, if there are genetic components to turning a cell into a cancer cell, is it just one mutation would be enough? Do you need a combination of mutations?

Because if the latter, then you can imagine that even if you get rid of all the actually cancerous cells, there's still a bunch of cells left over that are ready to become cancerous because they have all but one of the mutations. Yes. The answer is yes, that there is always that danger. So you were talking about we have a certain amount of resources. How are we going to spend them? I think before we get into it, I want to give you a few statistics. Sure.

The first is, as I said, our strategy has been since time immemorial to get rid of the cancer somehow. So we see a disease. Once it's already developed a little bit. We see it. Yes, we see it. We want to get rid of it. And if we get rid of what we can see, then we see. then we still assume that microscopic disease may be present,

so we try to kill it with supplemental adjuvant therapies like chemotherapy, radiation therapy, so we not only remove a woman's breast, we'll now give her tons of both of these as well. Over time, we have learned to use these things better, and that has changed, but I wanted to give you some statistics. First of all, patients who are diagnosed with early stage disease, 90% can be cured. But those who are advanced with advanced disease, 90% or more 100% are going to die with the common kinds of cancers. That makes sense, but it's a dramatic shift.

So we know that early detection is more amenable to treatment. It's true for every disease. The earlier you detect, the better you are able to treat it. you let things go completely out of hand. Now, I started my career, Sean, in 1977, by studying and treating patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Today, in 2019, I'm using the exact same combination of two chemotherapy drugs,

popularly known as 7 and 3, to treat acute myeloid leukemia. I was using 7 and 3, then I'm using it now. Can you imagine I see 30 to 40 patients every week for all these years? Can you imagine the same conversation with the same side effects and the same dreadful results over and over? Honestly, I cannot imagine being an oncologist. I think that you need a sort of strength of will and generosity that would tax me a little bit, but I give you credit for having all those conversations.

Thank you for saying that, but I have the opposite view. You have such exquisite sensitivity because I listen to. to all your great courses as well as your podcasts. And I think you have exquisite sensitivity and you would make an excellent doctor. And we all have to do what we have to do in life. That's right. And when a human being needs us,

then it is actually an immense privilege, Sean, to be there for someone and help them. If we can't help them live a better life, we help them have a better death. We help them at every step of the way. And to me, there is the most sublime form of grace that you can see. The greatest acts that you witness are seen in the nobility of endurance that is manifested by these patients. And a corresponding level of frustration that you're having the same conversation with them

about the same treatments 40 years later. And we should be able to do better, you think. I'll give you one example. My daughter Scheherzad's best friend, Andrew, three years ago, at 22 years of age, got diagnosed because he had pain and tingling in an arm. By the time he reached the emergency room, he was already quadriplegic. The neurosurgeons, when they operated on him, found a 9-centimeter brain tumor, which they could only partly remove.

So every oncologist knew from day zero that, this poor boy's chances of survival are 0.00. Do you know the first thing he said when he woke up, Sean, from the anesthesia? He said was, Mom, don't worry, just call Azra. She's on the cutting edge. She's going to find a cure for me. Oh, no.

How ashamed I felt. How can I ever look at myself in the mirror that this poor boy, I stood by his bedside realizing how bad. we have failed Andrew. And the question I asked myself is, how many Andrews will it take? And to address that last point, I wanted to bring you up to date about Andrew,

that three weeks before he died, which was two years ago now, they brought him a form to sign. Do not resuscitate. We call it a DNR form. And how old was he? 23 now. Diagnosed at 22.

He's 23. How is a 23-year-old supposed to sign his own death certificate? He sent it away. He said, I'm not signing it. So they took it away. That night, his father came over to spend the night with him. As soon as his father came, he called the people back to bring the form, signed it saying, I could not sign it in front of my mother and sister.

This is the grace I'm talking about. That his 23-year-old young man who's dying is protecting his mother. Well, we're all going to die someday. We all know it intellectually. But a certain point you reach as a cancer patient, you know it in a slightly different way and more visceral way that it's coming. And how you react, how you behave, says something about who you are. Definitely.

It is my opinion that the kind of lonely courage that this boy and that all the patients that I'm taking care of really show at one point or another in the course of their illness. That's the kind of courage that needs nations to dedicate monuments to. You know, some of it is it's the kind of courage that Harper Lee has defined beautifully. She says, Sean, courage is knowing that you are licked before you start. But you start anyway And you see it through

To the end And that is what Andrew did From the start He knew he's licked But he went through Round upon round of chemo radiation More surgery Immune therapy

More chemo, more radiation More immune therapy, more surgery He went through everything And saw it to the very end and that's the kind of courage that really is what I'm talking about after my husband died we found in his wallet a beautiful saying a beautiful line that he had written something to the effect that I know there is no good end for what I'm going through

but I have to do it because I'm a man and a man is responsible for himself And it's difficult because we don't either sort of narrowly as a medical establishment or broadly as a society deal very well with how to die, right? How to help people dying, how to admit that death is coming, how to face it. You know, there's individual moments of courage and grace, but there is not, we tend to avoid it, right? We tend to live in denial. Do you think that we can change that?

Do you think that how bad is it or is it better than I think it is? First, I want to quote Emily Dickinson, beautiful, beautiful writer. I measure every grief I meet with analytic eyes. I wonder if it weighs like mine or has a different size. I wonder if they bore it long or did it just begin. I cannot find the date of mine. It's been so long a pain. I wonder if it hurts to live and if they have to try and whether could they choose between they would not rather die.

You see, death is not an option. Death is not a choice. As you say, death is coming. So for all of us, but for those individuals who start hearing the footsteps of death approaching, what goes through their minds is impossible for us to imagine unless we are in those shoes. So I think it is impossible for us to switch places easily. However, one of the main reasons to write the book for me was exactly what you said, that I'm getting tired of everyone only promoting the positive anecdote,

as if dying is a failure. dying is not a failure, denying death is a failure. And the main difference between humans and Greek gods is that we accept mortality in the final analysis. Look at Andrew, at 23, he accepted mortality and is trying to protect the living. Because he knows he is dying, but he's trying to shield his mother and his sister. That is the sublime grace of humanity. and that is what makes my life a privilege to live instead of people's feeling sorry that I have to take care of dying patients,

they should be envious that I get to see humanity in its noblest of forms. Basically, it boils down to are we prolonging life or prolonging death by the current techniques? That's the question I'm asking in the book, that if the 16th, 38% patients we are curing today with cancer, why are we curing them with paleolithic treatments that belong in the stone age? Why are we still using chemotherapy? For God's sake, it's like taking a baseball bat to a dog to get rid of its fleas. It's so horrifying the toxic effects. And the 32% patients who present with advanced disease, who we know we are not benefiting, we are bringing.

drugs to their bedside which have a failure rate of 95% and the 5% that are FTA approved and are ostensibly great successes they should have failed because they are only prolonging survival by a few months for a small minority so if 100 patients are given this drug X 20 to 30% will respond for a few months, 70 to 80% will never respond and suffer all the toxic side effects. 100% will suffer physical toxicity of the drug and financial toxicity. Do you know, Sean, that today in America, 42% individuals who are diagnosed with cancer, 42% become financially ruined by 2 plus years? I was going to ask that I do know that, and that's astonishing number.

It is untenable. It is unsupportable. It is unconscionable. It would be one thing if, and then they lived happily ever after. Yes, they're not even living. So why are we bringing drugs to the market or to the bedside, which are benefiting a small fraction of patients for a few days and hurting everybody and ruining 42% not just themselves, their next generation,

to come. So the question is, what should we do then? We have present patients to worry about and then what are our plans for the future? Either we can keep doing the same thing. And there is some benefit to hanging on to your ideas forever, but sometimes giving up bad ideas can also help. Okay, we have milked the most out of chemo and radiation. Even for the 68% we are curing, there should be better solutions, in my opinion. We don't have to torture people. And for this 32%, we shouldn't be saying either you die of cancer or you die of the drugs we give you and also be financially ruined. But we have a limited number of resources. How are we going to spend it?

Actually, let me interrupt you just there because I want to, I don't want to let this terrible fact about financial ruin and the grim mortality rates go by without wondering about the causality just a little bit. Let me just put this on the table. Are some people or groups benefiting financially? from the current regime? Do they have a vested interest in keeping it like this? My answer is not some people, but everyone is benefiting except a cancer patient. Why do I say this? I think it's very easy for the public to imagine the worst possible things about the evil pharmaceutical companies. But I ask you this question. If you go to the corner drugstore and buy a packet of 100 band-aids, you'll cost you $3.99 or something.

If you go to a hospital and they put a band-aid on you, one band-aid will cost $75. So where's the drug company in this equation? And what about all the extra imaging or extra scanning people are getting? And what about all the therapies that oncologists are giving to patients who they know will not be benefited? 80% chances they will not be benefited. Why aren't we holding them responsible? The question is, I don't. I'm one of them. Every criticism applies to me as much as it does to any other oncologists. Why am I doing it? When I know seven and three is so bad, why am I giving it? Because otherwise I'll go to jail. Because a group of key opinion leaders in the field have reviewed all the data and come up with guidelines. And it's a good thing to try to make something more uniform, try to bring some method to the madness. So that let's say for pancreatic,

cancer patient is diagnosed with stage four disease. These three drugs will be used in first line treatment, then these three in second line, these two in third line treatment. That is the guideline. If I deviate from doing that, then I'm opening myself to legal challenges. So I'm also giving those drugs, knowing full well that it will only hurt 80% of the people, practically 100% in the end for a benefit of a few months. The other thing is we tell everything to the patient.

It's not like we are doing it without sign consent forms. And they are the ones choosing it also because life is so precious and dying is so scary that most of my patients will tell me even if there's one in a million chance. What do I have to lose? Let me sign up for it and do it. So it's a very strange kind of system where everyone is to be blamed but no one can actually. assume the blame. So where does individual responsibility end and society's responsibility begin? These are the fundamental questions I'm raising in the book. And it is fundamentally difficult. If you're told there's a 1% chance of survival, a 99% chance that you will die and your family

will be financially ruined, saying no, I'm not even going to try to take that 1% is difficult. Or more in terms of policy saying, well, we should spend less because most of what we're spending is being wasted, people are going to worry that if you're spending less, you're not doing as good a job. Of course. It's honestly hard to balance these. So here's the thing. I'm saying that if 95% of the drugs we bring to the bedside are failing, the first question is why are they failing? because whatever we did to bring them to the bedside is a failing model. What is that failing platform where we are even developing these drugs to bring to the bedside?

Mostly in animals or in vitro petri dishes or in extremely artificial conditions that we keep insisting will be extrapolated to humans. Well, over and over it's been shown that doesn't happen. So there's a time to simply take off the blinders. And admit the truth, cancer is too complicated for us to understand every intracellular signaling pathway and then try to fix it because it has moved on also. I know you have strong opinions about studies being done on mice. Very strong opinions. And mice are the model organism in which we test our ideas about cancer, right?

So I don't want to be misquoted here. I'll make myself very clear because very often. Often I am miscoted and then I get hate mail for months, years. Not for mine. No, I hope not. The main point I want to make is this. Animal models are excellent biologic tools where we can test a large number of very intricate questions about all sorts of biologic phenomena. There's no question about it.

or most of the advances have occurred even in cancer because of studying animals. The only thing I object to, which I try to be as specific as possible, and I'm glad you're giving me this chance to explain my point of view accurately. The only thing I object to is you can't create a tumor in an animal, treat it with some drug, and think now when you use the same drug in the human tumor, it's going to have the same results. So for drug development, animal models have not been helpful.

But they're used all the time. But they are used in these preclinical testing platform. In fact, you can't bring a drug to the market unless you've tested it in mice. And my question is, why is that giving the FDA any level of confidence that if we don't see toxicity in mice, we won't see toxicity in humans? Or if we see efficacy in mice, we'll see efficacy in humans. Because the actual evidence is contrary to that, that there is no possibility of this flip-flop exchange of information from one species to another.

Yet we keep doing it. You know about the Twitter account called In Mice? It takes headlines. You know, study shows eating ice cream cures heart disease. And then it just retweets it with the words, In mice added. It's that time of year when you're doubtless buying presents for the people you care about in your life. So why not buy a present for yourself in the form of an Audible membership?

Now is the best time to treat yourself to some audiobooks and other audio specials with an offer of 53% off your first three months. You can get, of course, all of my books on Audible, most of them, at least the last two, read by myself. You can get Azzarra's book, the first sell, on Audible. You can listen on any device, anytime, anywhere with the Audible app. You can choose three titles every month, one audiobook, and two exclusive Audible originals you can't hear anywhere else. And right now, for a limited time, three months of Audible, for just $6.95 a month, more than half

off the regular price. Visit Audible.com slash Mindscape, or text Minescape to 500-500. That's 500-00-50-go to audible.com slash mind-scape. Get my books, get whatever book that you've been thinking about. Treat yourself. It's the end of the year. You're worth it. Yes, so I got tired of the promotion of this anecdotal person who has had remission for four years on this drug that had failed in everybody. The question I asked is that, yes, it's true that there are unicorns who have superb, inexplicable responses. even to targeted therapies that have failed in every other patient. And we don't have an explanation of why they are responding so well.

But we keep taking that as the anecdote that we recount over and over to say, well, that could happen. The question I'm asking is, at the expense of what? At the expense of 99 out of 100 patients suffering unbearable toxicities. and medicines, one rule that we begin with is first do no harm. So how can we justify ourselves in an enterprise where 95% drugs are going to just harm? And the 5% that we think won't harm will still harm the majority of patients. So instead of constantly trying to improve the typewriter, we have to invent something like the word processor to make that obsolete.

in order to make the paradigm shift to a better one, we need to show a better way, because no one is going to willingly give up what they're doing. This June, the world comes to Los Angeles. Kick off FIFA World Cup 2026 at the FIFA Fan Festival of the iconic Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. Watch matches live on giant screen. Feel every goal with thousands of fans.

And celebrate with music, culture, and flavors from around the world. Join us June 11th through 14th, opening weekend. as the tournament kicks off in Los Angeles. Tickets are just $10 and kids under 12 were free. Get yours now at Los Angeles FWC26.com. And there is sort of a naive logic about testing things on mice in the sense that if it goes terribly wrong and the mouse dies, it's not as bad as it happening to a human being.

But I think that you have this idea that we can test things on human cells or human tissues without testing them on human being. and maybe that's a better way to go. Yes, that's exactly well said. You should be giving this podcast because you are so eloquent. No, I think that's exactly right, that yes, there are some things we can't do in humans that we can do in animals, but we don't have to do them. There are other things that we can do that we haven't even interrogated yet.

So how do we do that? How do we test things out on human tissues or cells without the whole human? I think it was in 1940s, I think, that somebody said, the best model for a cat is another cat, preferably the same one. The same cat. They are different, yes. So in other words, what we need is we need to test individual humans for their disease. And if we want to diagnose, we know that the only thing that works in cancer is not, in fact, 1903, Dr. Childe in England said this.

It's not the cancer that kills, but the delay in treatment that kills. So if we know that the earlier we detect cancer, the higher the chances of cure, why not try and develop better techniques to detect cancer early? Well, this is not a new idea. Screening measures for cancer were put into place 50 years ago. Screening how by mammography, by colonoscopy, by pap smear, and by PSA measurements. These are the four most common screening measures used. And mortality from cancer has dropped by 26% in the last 30 years, not because we invented some new magic bullet, but because of... Not because we're curing it. No, because of two things.

One, anti-smoking campaigns and two screening measures. Even with these four old screening measures, we have brought down the mortality. But these have been milk dry now. This is the maximum benefit we will get. The present rate for cancer mortality is only declining by 1% a year. And only that is happening. Again, not because of new drugs coming on. market, but learning to use existing chemotherapy, radiation therapy, better, and diagnosing

cancer earlier and earlier through more sophisticated imaging, scanning, etc. techniques. So what my point in the book is simply, we have done enough by trying to chase the last cell. We have used artificial testing platforms, clinical drug development platforms. These have been spectacular failures. And by the last cell, we mean the most recent cancer cell in this cancerous growth rather than the first one that appeared. The last cell means that after you have given all the treatment, you still think some residual disease may be left behind. And that is the last cell I'm talking about. So we keep trying to develop sophisticated techniques to molecularly identify the last cell.

I'm saying why not go not for minimal residual disease, but develop techniques to determine minimal initial disease and diagnose it cancer early, in fact, and try to prevent it. So instead of using the standard screening measures I described, why not in this day and age of godlike technology cutting and pasting the DNA? why not develop technologies like you go to sleep in bed sheets that scan you overnight for the presence of a hot spot? Because remember I told you a cancer when it begins divides faster than normal cells, so it needs more nutrition, it attracts more blood supply. Area becomes hot. It can be picked up by scanning techniques. So the phrase hotspot is not metaphorical, is literally hotter, a part of your body that is higher than average temperature. Yes.

For example, a smart bra is now in. clinical trials, which is fitted with 200 nanocensors that detect changes in temperature and circadian rhythms. So the point is, or you can sit on something in the toilet in the morning, it's called the fit loo. It takes part of your urine and examines it for the presence of biomarkers of malignancy that are being metabolites that may be secreted. Or you can do a liquid biopsy. If somebody has colon cancer, as soon as cancer cells begin and start proliferating, they start shedding their DNA into the blood. You know where it started, actually?

It started with mother-child placental bridge, because it turns out that since developmental abnormalities in an embryo, in an embryo increase with increasing maternal age. So an older woman becoming pregnant has a higher chance of having an abnormal, developmentally abnormal baby. In order to diagnose those kinds of syndromes like Down syndromes, etc, we used to put a long needle into the uterus of the mother, draw amniotic fluid and look at it.

I underwent this amniocintesis when I was pregnant because I was 40 years old when I was pregnant but then this was discovered that the fetus is shedding its DNA into maternal blood so cell-free fetal DNA CFF DNA is now

the standard routine thing all we need is a few drops of the mother's blood now and we have the health of the fetus reflected in those few drops of blood or few ccs of blood the same techniques

have been applied to cancer When cancer starts, it also sheds off cell-free DNA, C-F-D-Na, into the blood. And so you can... And this is the mutated DNA that is leading to cancer. And just two weeks ago, it was announced by the company Grail, which is really going after early detection of cancer. They announced that not only can they detect cell-free DNA reliably, 99% of the time, they can also say which organ it's coming from. Is it coming from pancreas?

Is it coming from the liver? Is it coming from the lungs? Based on the kind of mutations. So this is the beauty of very different disciplines of knowledge coming together in a conciliance of cross disciplines to yield this kind of information because the human genome was sequenced 20 years ago practically. But now we are seeing the dividends of it because we know what the normal DNA should look like.

We can pick up a mutation. We can now detect, I mean, think about it. 20 years ago, it took 15 years and $2.7 billion to do the first human genome sequencing. Today, it cost a few thousand dollars in three weeks of sequencing. So we become efficient very quickly. And I think that if we start paying more attention to these new types of techniques we need to develop, strategies to detect cancer's footprints in any secretion for example blood sweat tears urine stool you can do you can find biologic markers of DNA for example some cancers which are

beginning let's say your bed sheets detected a spot in my head of pancreas one night the next morning it isn't necessary for me to have an open abdominal procedure in a whipple procedure and eviscerate my whole belly. No, what it means is first I should be monitored and then taken for maybe even more sophisticated focused scanning measures to make sure that this thing is growing. It's a real presence. If it is confirmed, it's a real presence. One thing we can do is do a liquid biopsy, see if it's shedding anything in the blood, in the urine, in the tears and saliva, if we don't find it, then we can still do another thing. We can yell at that spot.

How do we yell? Using ultrasounds. We hit it with ultrasound. When ultrasounds hit this little mass, it wiggles, it shakes, and they shut off more protein. So you hit it, it yells back, and then you just do another test of these liquid biopsies from various places, and now see if you're detecting it. And once you detect it, then you really confirm. firm, its potential lethality, because it may not necessarily be very aggressive, it may not

need to be removed right away, it may not kill someone who's 80 years for another 30 years, so there's no need to go in. So all these markers of initial malignancy, its potential lethality, its ability to become invasive and aggressive, those are all pieces of information that can actually be investigated with the current sophisticated technology. So my point is we have present patients and we have future patients. We should divide up resources into half and half. Half we should be dedicating to the present patients, half to developing better technologies to prevent and to detect early and prevent

the disease from becoming its end-stage monstrosity. Whereas right now it's not 50-50. No, it's 5 and 95 right now. 5% for future patients. For future, for early detection. And for present patients, what we need to do also, Sean, which I feel very strongly about, is we have to stop hurting them. I mean, that is something we need to stop giving everybody.

And the most obvious thing to do is try and identify which patients are likely to respond to which drugs. how do you do that well any time a sponsor wants to propose a clinical trial an experimental trial they should be made to save every sample from every patient going on that first trial and then you'll have some patients who respond some who don't now you compare the responders and non-responders using every technique you have available genomics proteomics transcriptomics metabolomics panomics test by every way and try to enrich the next trial for patients who are likely to respond and so on and so forth. Today, the clinical trials are done the same way they were being done in 1977. And it is horrifying to me that the agencies which have been charged with protecting patients and demanding this kind of rigor are not doing it. I think that the, this sounds very provocative and promising and so forth. The idea, the scientific idea that I get from it that is most exciting to me is the idea of the footprints of the cancer. I mean, wearing a blanket and finding a hotspot sounds interesting,

but that's literally looking for the tumor in your body, whereas this sort of indirect idea that once there's a tumor in your body, it leaves traces either from DNA, and correct me if I'm wrong from reading your body, wrong from reading your book, but you can find tracers of the fact that your immune system is beginning to fight it also in your blood. Is that another way of doing it? Yes, definitely. In fact, the best way that would emerge eventually is a collection of all of this technology, which is imaging and scanning and devices and biomarkers and generic markers, all these put together and all being read by something no bigger than your cell phone

and all the information available on this, but then even implantable devices. I mean, I'm working with biomedical engineers at Columbia University on a chip that we want to implant under the skin from birth to death, which constantly should be monitoring. The idea is that even the screening techniques we used so far brought down the mortality considerably, but it's not happening anymore because they have reached their lives.

limit. But those were done annually at best. We want to treat the human body as if it is a machine and constantly monitor it for even the appearance of perturbations and disease-caused networks. And you see that and you step in and try to intervene. So there's many of the same drugs which are failing today can be applied in earlier stages of the disease and may be far more effective. And this has been shown as a paradigm in chronic myeloid leukemia. The disease I mentioned to you for which a targeted therapy is the ideal for every cancer, well, in that cancer itself, as long as it is chronic myeloid leukemia, that drug is curative. But if the disease starts to accelerate, becomes acute leukemia, the same drug is useless. So earlier stages, the same

drugs can work. Well, that's what I wanted to pinpoint also. So, I mean, it seems obviously true that if you can find the disease earlier, you have a better chance of curing it, but how far can we go in saying that? If we find it very, very early, does our chances of curing the disease go very, very high, or does it increase by 10%? My answer is it will be 100% more curable. Why? Because of all the statistics that are available.

The earlier you find cancer, the better you're able to cure it. But the issue is how quickly are we able to do it? And then technologies will also evolve for treatment of early disease. So if you diagnose... Is it a different kind of thing to try to do than cure the late disease? Yes. So let's say you have a million cells to kill rather than 150 billion cells to kill. There's a big difference.

So I think, for example, if you needed radiation therapy to kill 100 billion cells, you may need just a targeted laser to knock off a few million cells quite confidently. Or you can use immune cellular therapies that if we have a biomarker, we can arm the killer cells of the immune system with it, and it will be able to distinguish then between the cancer and the normal cells. The current cellular therapies we are using are unable to distinguish between cancer cells and normal cells. That's why the toxicities of say CART therapy, because it will kill every cell that is expressing that marker, which means normal cells as well as cancer cells. I'm saying that once we have biomarkers specific for cancer cells, we may have an address for the cancer cell also that is more usable by these, the same techniques which are causing so much toxicity.

And it sounds like this is great because it's not just an aspiration. It's not just a sort of feel-good motto that if we found the cancer earlier, we could help cure it quicker, more effectively, but that there are very concrete steps being taken. How popular is this view in the community? Is this a plucky minority, or is it catching on as that this is what we should be concentrating on? Right now, all of these things I describe to you are in various stages of development. So everyone has known for 50 years that the best strategy is to go early.

and people have spent a lot of time in screening and trying to make those as accurate as possible. And in the last 10, 15 years, people have started developing all this new technology based on the evolving genomic information and proteomics, etc., that's becoming available. So clearly those things are all in various stages of development. It's not a pie in the sky. But the more resources we need, the more people will get interested. who are today wasting their time and talent and intellect on failing models because they are working with mentors who for 30 years have used those failing models and they are the ones sitting

in every granting agency deciding who gets the grant and who gets to scratch who is back this is all has to stop and young minds and young intellect as well as resources should be better used, I think. And new technology, new ideas, new therapies will bring their own set of problems. So I'm not someone who's going to say, oh, all our problems will be resolved because I'm an old hag. I've been there, done that in all kinds of things. But I do think that it is time to recognize at least where we are failing, time to take off our blinders, time to at least describe the problem in its detail and see the problem for what it is. Right now we are not even willing to see the problem.

It's not that we are just not finding the solution. We refuse to look at the details of what we are doing wrong. My insistence is to look at all of this through the prism of human anguish. Because this is not just some cut and dried signs. This involves humans. This involves a 22-year-old Andrew or a 38-year-old umar or my patient J.C. who died at 34 or Harvey who was diagnosed with his first cancer and then at 34 and his second cancer at 57. And this is one thing I want to also recount to you, Sean, that my life has been committed to early detection since 1984. You know why? Because I started by studying acute myeloid leukemia.

and treating patients with it. Within a short space of seven years, it became clear to me that in my lifetime, this disease is so aggressive, we will not be able to cure it. And I was right, unfortunately. We were using seven and three then. We are using seven and three now.

In 1984, because of a patient, J.C., I realized that the best way to handle acute myeloid leukemia is to stop the disease before it does. become so aggressive. Are there patients like that? Yes, it's a whole series of syndromes called myelodysplastic syndromes, which are pre-leukemic because a third of these patients can develop acute myeloid leukemia. My idea was, well, then we should study pre-leukemia and follow these patients through. And had I gone to school in this country, at this point I would have invested the rest of my life into making a mouse model of this free leukemia. But coming from

Pakistan as a fresh immigrant, I trusted my instinct rather than followed custom. And I decided, oh, I'm going to study these patients, let me save their samples. So I just started banking blood, bone marrow, aspirin biopsies, normal buckle smears, germline controls on all my patients. So by saving them, you don't mean saving the data. You mean literally saving the tissues. Both. No, I mean both.

The data as well as the actual samples. it's the most well-annotated tissue repository, which today has more than 60,000 samples from thousands of patients, and not one cell has come from a different doctor. Every patient is my patient. Do you want other doctors to contribute to this? It's very expensive. They can't afford to do it.

I'm the only one who does it because I pay for it. And how do I pay for it? No grant can support it. my patient supported for me. I ask them and they want to give me money and I say no, I don't want personal money give it to the tissue repository because it

costs almost a million dollars a year just to maintain the tissue repository. So point is that I have these samples which were obtained in a longitudinal fashion serially on these thousands of patients as they progress from pre-leukemia to acute

leukemia. Now if we go in and study these samples and work our way back, we can at the end go and ask the question, why did this a healthy individual even get pre-leukemia? Was there a genetic mutation that made them susceptible or at high risk for it? What was it about their exosome, environment, exposure? What was there about their background, their inherited DNA? And so those kinds of questions we can then take to the DNA sequences that are in the public domain from hundreds of thousands of healthy volunteers and find out how many people fit our bill for being at high risk of developing even pre-leukemia and then following those healthy individuals to find whether they develop it or not and how

quickly can we stop it there this is the kind of thing we need to do the problem is so it took me so long to amass the samples. Even today, I'm doing five to ten bone marrow every week in my clinic. With my own hands, I do the bone marrow and banking them. So I have all this tissue. The technology has caught up. We need resources. Who's going to give the resources? The government can't afford it because I need $100 million to study the whole repository. It isn't as if I haven't been studying it, Sean. Of course. Over the last 13. years, I have over 300 original publications which are reporting on the results we find from limited samples we take out, study it for one gene or that signaling pathway or this drug

or that kind of thing, but limited questions. Clearly, now that all the technology has arrived and we need to go in and study the entire tissue repository, that is a thing that no one can, no government grant can support $100 million to one individual. And I don't need the money to set up, you know, a building with 70 scientists working in it. No, this is money that's needed to pay for the actual tests for the samples. To do the proteomics on 200 patients cost $4 million. This is the kind of, that's where the money will go. So the other idea that occurred to me was...

If there are any Minescape listeners out there who would like to donate $100 million to the tissue repository, we'll encourage them to do that. I mean, can you just, I like to try to give the audience a sort of visceral feel for what it's like to be doing this kind of work. Number one, let me just mention this kind of longitudinal study is the gold standard in sciences, social sciences, especially, and really hard and expensive to do because you have to start young and continue to be dedicated and get the resources. But how, like, where is it? Where are these tissues?

Are they in a room somewhere? Are they kept a cold? Do they still duplicate the cells? Or is there a finite number of cells that we use up? So it's the entire tissue repository is housed at Columbia University, a cancer center. It moved with me from Buffalo to Cincinnati to Chicago to Massachusetts to New York now. It's been around.

And it has since 1984, which traveled with me. And these are samples which are in freezers. But in addition, we have frozen viables tissue also, which can be brought out and regrown in plates, in animals, in vitro, in vivo. So it's an immense collection of samples. Everything belongs to Columbia University. I don't have any companies to my name. I don't need any personal money. This is all going to go through Columbia University.

So one thing that occurred to me, Sean, is that the people who should be most interested in finding the first cell are the people who are at highest risk of getting cancer. Who are those people? They're people like Harvey, my late husband. People who have one cancer. Now, I don't want to scare your listeners at all. but I do want to say that one in five new cancers is diagnosed in a cancer survivor. Because whatever was there to cause the first cancer is still there. The conditions are still there.

Conditions are there and probably with our treatment, for some of them, we have made the conditions worse because Harvey did not die of his cancer. He died because we wiped out his immune system with the horrible chemotherapy we gave him. So the point is the people at highest risk should be the most interested. Today in this country there are 20 million survivors from cancer. Even if one million of them just give $10 a month for a year, that's it. That will fund the whole tissue repository. People ask me, Dr. Reza, why should we give you money and not to the American Cancer Society? My answer is where is the tissue for American Cancer Society?

Talk is cheap, Sean. Sean, but I'm the one who has the tissue. I'm the one who has the commitment to early detection because I've been going after not just acute leukemia, but pre-leukemia. Since 1984, I've been saying the same thing since 1984. How much more credibility can I give? People are very quick to start criticizing me. Oh, she's talking about the first cell. She has, she doesn't know how much screening measures have failed. I know. Nobody needs to lecture me about. these things because not only do I see 30 to 40 cancer patients every week. I have had a cutting-edge research lab for 35 plus years and I'm a cancer widow. So I have stood on both sides of the bed

of a cancer patient as well as a family member as well as an oncologist. So there is really very little that I have not experienced directly and firsthand and I have been consistently committed to finding cancer at its earliest possible cell and try to take care of it to prevent the disease from happening. And if people don't trust me by now and don't want to support this tissue repository, then I don't know who will. All I can say is as long as there is one breath left in my body, I will keep saying the same thing and trying to work as hard as ever for my patients. I can't think of a better place to end up than that. That was very eloquently said.

Dr. Osir-Raza, thanks so much for being on the Mindscape podcast. Thank you, Sean. It has been an honor being on your podcast. Deadlines move. Plans change. And sometimes opportunities pop up out of nowhere. When you need branded gear fast, Four Imprint is ready to deliver. Four Imprint offers hundreds of

promotional products in their 24-hour category. Everything from custom apparel, bags and drinkware to writing tools, trade show staples, and high-tech gear. At 4-imprint, it's not just about speed. It's about doing it right. Your logo is printed with precision. Your order is packed with care, and it all ships out fast. And with their 360-degree guarantee, you can be confident it'll show up right on time, just the way you planned it. That's the certainty of 4-imprint. So if you're prepping for a last minute event or jumping on a big opportunity. You don't have to settle or scramble. With For Imprint, you get fast, reliable service, and peace of mind built right in.

Check out their full 24-hour selection at 4imprint.com. For Imprint, for certain.